On December of 2012, we posted an article at this entitled Making 2012 the Worst Year in the History of Darwinism in which we said that we wanted to make 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism. Also, anyone who has followed the creation vs. evolution debate does not find it surprising that post World War II, the most ardent and vocal proponents of evolutionary belief have been atheists/agnostics.

But so far, how are things going for atheism/evolutionism in 2012?

Internet atheism has taken a fall in the last 5 years and in 2012

In 2007, the Bible believer Chuck Norris noted that atheists were making a concerted effort to spread atheism via the internet. As you you will soon see via the graphs below, it has been an abysmal failure! The atheist community flooded the internet with a lot of shallow, ill-reasoned fluff that many in the public quickly dismissed.

Atheists, you forgot one of the most important rules of Business 101: When you have a bad product, increasing the advertising budget is not going to make it a long term success! And atheism is definitely an errant worldview - see the web resources: Atheism and Atheism and skepticism - Questions and Answers

QUESTION: How is internet atheism/skepticism doing on the internet in the last 5 years and in 2012 according to leading web traffic firms?

Web traffic data on leading atheist and skepticism websites

Here are some web traffic graphs from leading atheists websites taken from the leading website web traffic companies of Alexa, Quantcast and Compete:

Of course, the ineffectiveness of the agnosticism and evolutionism apologist Richard Dawkins can also be said of internet atheism apologists such as PZ Myers, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheists and others. The big losses in internet traffic of leading atheism websites in recent years is not surprising since they often repeat the same inane and ineffective atheism talking points. Babbling on about unicorns, leprechauns and Santa Claus and other atheist claptrap only goes so far. See: Internet atheism: the thrill is gone

Thunderfoot's abysmal performance with his discussion with evangelist Ray Comfort helped further demonstrate that atheism cannot withstand cross examination. The same could be said of creation scientists largely winning the public creation vs. evolution debates

32 comments:

Thank God that atheism is fading! People are put off by the obnoxiousness of the least-liked, least-trusted group.

"On December of 2012, we posted an article at this entitled Making 2012 the Worst Year in the History of Darwinism ". Better fix that typo. You did NOT post anything in December of 2012 unless you got your TARDIS fixed and moved forward into time. Mine is still broken.

"When you have a bad product, increasing the advertising budget is not going to make it a success!"

That is somewhat untrue. Just look at advertising on TV....it's well known that the worst the product is(think Bud Light or McDonalds), the more they put into advertising to sell it. Which they do very successfully obviously. This may be more about perception than reality though.

Besides, who spends more on reaching out to target audiences to sell their "truths"? Christian organizations or Atheists and evolutionists? It's not even close.

Not really into fast food and most beers (only occasionally drink some premium beers).

Setting that aside, the market consistency pares away products that do not provide value to their customers as a general principle. Even lower quality products can survive if the cost/benefit ratio is present in satifying their customers needs and/or wants. Studies and experience consistently show that poor value propositions have a tendency to fail more often and faster than value propositions. If you can show me a Harvard Business Review published study showing otherwise, then please do so.

The ideologies of Darwinism and atheism attempt to satisfy their adherents but consistency fail to do that. Atheists have one of the highest suicide rates for example. Darwinists are consistently trying to foist new schemes on the public and fail time after time. See this article: The evolutionary parade of ‘missing links’ The floats keep changing! at http://creation.com/missing-links-parade

No amount of pray makes something a fact. No amount of belief makes someone's wooden leg alive. No amount of belivers makes gods true.You, belivers, have been proven wrong every time. Gods never answer no matter how hard you ask or belive in them. Is so wrong that people would waste their lives beliving in imaginary beings.So sad that 45% belive in gods and that their butts were probed by evil aliens...

This is an UNquestion. You are attempting to ask a nonsensical question. Do you mean "What proof and evidence do you have that it is accurate?"Well, no atheist can say that they have any. I cant prove or disprove the existance of god scientifically, and neither can any christian. Smarter people than us have debated this time and time again, the word of god could be evidence, but the only evidence we have, has been translated god only knows how many times over generations, so you cant actually say with any certainty that what is in the bible now, is what (if im to believe in god) god actually said. Religion, is, by definition, the FAITH that what you have read and what the bible tells you is an exact account of the law and words of god.

I could attack you and your beliefs all day long, but it doesnt make my position any more correct, or yours incorrect. However science explains the world around me, and shows my the HOW of the universe. The only place where there should be any real conflict between Christian and Atheist, is Creationism, where science flat out disproves (it is only YECs that disagree, not mainstream christianism, otherwise creationism would be taught in every catholic/christian school on the planet) the timeline of creation. There IS no debate to that because there can BE no debate, the scientific side uses interpretation of known scientific theory, falsifiability, and reproducability.

The Creationist side relies on blind faith that the bible is the inerrant, correctly translated (translated by man), wholly correct word of god.

Thank the maker that Creationism is a very small, (if very vocal) minority. If it was accepted as incontravertable truth, then every atheist would have been taught it in school. Every religious school would be teaching it in science, instead of relegating it to Religious Instruction classes.

Does science disprove the existance of god? No, but it makes a good case against it.Does the bible prove the existance of god? No, nor does it produce an even mildly case for it under the definitions of "Evidence", but again, i say, the whole concept of faith, does not require any evidence, it requires the unquestioning belief that what is in the bible is exactly the word and intent of God.

The 15 questions atheists cant answer, have in fact, all been answered repeatedly, just not to your own definition of proof. And this, my friends, certainly doesnt add up to what you claim.

My favourite way of putting all this in perspective?

I can find the answer to anything in this life through science. I cannot answer what will happen after my death.

Christians have the answer to what happens after death, but you have no real explanation to anything in life. Ultimately, you have no right to be telling me how i should or shouldnt live my life. If praying for my soul helps you sleep at night, go right ahead, it doesnt insult me at all. Nor do i have any right to tell you how to live your life. But then i dont believe that my failure to save your soul affects what happens to me after death.

I read with amusement, that apparently Geoffrey Dahmer is going to heaven, because he was saved at the last minute, but Ghandi will go to hell.

1. There are a number of forms of evidence in the world. Many atheists are under the allusion that scientific evidence is the only type of evidence, but this is not true. For example, there is historical evidence.

2. You did not demonstrate that the translation of the Bible into English obscures its meaning. Translating is a commonly accepted practice in the world. I am sorry to hear you feel it makes texts unintelligible. It sounds like an excuse to me though and a rather poor one at that.

3. You didn't offer any evidence that creationist rely on blind faith. He who asserts must prove. You didn't do that. There is plenty of sound evidence for biblical creation. creation.com/creation-answers

4. You didn't demonstrate that asking atheists for proof that God exists is a nonsensical question. For example, you can prove a negative by showing that it is incoherent. You are very ignorant when it comes to logic and philosophy.

5. There is plenty of sound evidence for Christianity. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html

You illogical posts and unsupported claims show that you are unwilling to examine it. Sin and rebellion is the root cause of complaints. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-is-evolution-is-pushed-in-america.html

6. You claim the 15 questions for evolutionists have been answered repeatedly. Sorry, when you take a test and give poor answers, you fail the test.

7. Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate.

The blathering in your post isn't compelling. I certainly wasn't converted to atheism or troubled by your comments. I doubt it will have an effect on others as well.

First, you offered no proof of evidence for your claims such as the Bible being a fictional book or atheism making common sense or things in the Bible being proven wrong. For example, if atheism is common sense, then why does it have such a low market share of the world's adherents?

Second, not only is the content of your comment low, but so is its execution. For example, the word Bible should have been capitalized.

Third, I hope your not under the allusion that you comment will create the first atheism revival because it will not. By the end of today there will be 800 less atheists and 83,000 more people calling themselves Christians. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/globally-worldviews-of-atheism-and-non.html

Fourth, our blog readers are interested in actual proof and evidence and not speculation. If you are interested in having further comments approved, you are going to have to step up your game considerably.

The Bible is a curious and often evaluated anthology, most notably Exodus has drawn criticism for its lack of historical evidence of having taken place. While I may not outright affirm that the Bible is a fictional piece of literature, Genesis is by far an account of a fantastic creation mythology that seems to be in rivalry with science in general. I must agree that atheism is not of the basis in common sense, but as a default in position with respect to the proposition whether gods exist. There are much to be discussed on the varied circumstances for how and why one is categorised as an atheist, but it strikes me as odd that there remains a contention whether atheism is true when in fact neither 'atheism' or 'theism' have truth values. On your troubled question on the popularity or adherence to 'atheism', surely you cannot be suggesting that numbers provide credibility for the veracity of what is being adhered to.

Your first point is flawed. Just become an opinion isn't popular doesn't mean it's not the correct one. Take for example the fact that the earth is round. Initially, those who discovered this were mocked. The popular opinion at the time was that the earth was flat. Obviously that turned out to be wrong.

Your second point is also flawed. Grammatical errors do not necessarily invalidate what is being said. For example, accidentally putting two periods at the end of a sentence doesn't detract from the content of what is being said. Another example come directly from your post. You incorrectly used the word "allusion" when "illusion" should have been used.

Your third point is also flawed in that the information is not easily verifiable. The source cited in that blog post doesn't link directly to the study. How are we supposed to verify the numbers if we can view the original content?

15 questions for evolutionists: You may want to step up YOUR game if you are going to post grammatical errors like "allusion" instead of "illusion." Although that is beside the actual point of this discussion area, it does make you look like a bit of a hypocrite. As a pragmatic Believer, it frightens me to see people such as yourself citing only blogs whose purpose is stated as purely christian. While it is easy and perhaps pleasing to only cite from sources that give information favorable to your point, it is quite another to cite both sources unfavorable and favorable in order to truly ascertain a valid conclusion. However, I would not expect someone such as yourself to accept anything that does not fully agree with you, given your statement "For example, if atheism is common sense, then why does it have such a low market share of the world's adherents?". Clearly, you cannot expect something to be true simply because others believe it, just as you cannot say something is wrong because some do not believe it. For faith tempered by reasoned and learned counterpoint and argument is far more powerful than simply attacking the intellectual status and making assumptions of the intent of others, with only thinly veiled propaganda as your recourse. Perhaps it is you who may want to step up their discourse and reach an Enlightened level with Him.

The global atheist population began declining at the start of the 1970's. A simplified representation is here: https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pNdFoF0MY0lli2rVzXpWAEQ

The trend will continue in the near future. There were many factors that contributed to the decline, the decline of communism and religious missions to name a couple.

What I wish to bring up are the demographics of where atheism is declining, and where it is on the rise.

Islam and Christianity have dramatically changed the demographics of Africa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_in_the_world.PNGOn other continents, especially Christian missions introduced Christianity to new countries, for example in Asia.

Atheism is increasing in developed countries like Sweden, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Australia and Belgium to name a few.These are highly developed countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita#cite_note-3

The global atheist population peaked in the late 1960's after which it became unsustainable.

The United States is actually one of the most religious highly developed countries.

Hope I added some balance to that discussion.

As for proving that "Internet Atheism" is on the decline, I strongly disagree because you can't show statistic for a few obscure websites. I'm atheist but when I get on my laptop I don't just hop onto RichardDawkins.net. Theres just no reason really.

In contrast I can offer some popular atheist sites that I have visited in the past:

It has often been said that the definition of insanity is to do the same things over and over and expect different results.

You can clearly see the web traffic and global market share of leading atheist websites fall significantly, yet you all use the same tired unconvincing arguments.

You all see that global atheism is falling in adherents and global market share yet you all use same ineffective tactics of atheists which are clearly failing to convince people.

Needless to say, this is irrational.

I realize it may be hard to believe but unicorns, atheism supposedly being the default position (which strangely many people are not defaulting to! ), speculative criticisms lacking in evidence and cherry picking data while ignoring extremely relevant data is not interesting or relevant to people, but nonetheless this is the case.

You conveniently failed to cite Eric Kaufmann's data which was clearly linked to near the top of the article. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-are-years-2012-and-2020-key-years.html

Kaufmann writes: "Committed religious populations are growing in the West, and will reverse the march of secularism before 2050." This is due to the low birth rates of atheists, the higher birth rates of committed religious people plus immigration. Already, UK evangelicals are posing a challenge to the liberal Anglican establishment and a post on this matter can be found on this blog. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/biblical-christianity-is-rising-in-uk.html

Furthermore, although it is not mentioned at this blog Japan is seeing a growth of Christianity according to the Gallup organization.

I cite:

"According to a media advisory obtained by ANS, among the findings from one of the most extensive surveys of the country ever taken was a Christian population of 6 percent, a number much higher than reported in previous surveys...

Researchers were especially surprised at the large number of Japanese youth who claimed the Christian faith. Of the 20 percent who professed to have a religion, 60 percent called themselves Buddhists, 36 percent Christians and followers of the traditionally dominant Japanese religion, Shinto. See: http://www.wnd.com/2006/03/35319/

Also, highly developed countries with a significant amount of religious freedom can be very religious and even atheist academics agree on this point as can be seen here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/strange-tongue/201006/why-atheism-wont-replace-religion-0 The United States is a prime example of this.

It does seem as if socialism may be correlated with more atheistic belief but this is not surprising since much of secular leftist ideology is hostile to religion. I do realize that when people can get more arrogant when they are wealthier and reject Christianity but again this is not surprising since Christianity teaches that pride/greed can lead people astray.

Another example of Patryk ignoring relevant data is when he claimed I picked supposedly obscure websites. What like Richarddawkins.net freethoughtblogs.com, atheists.org, samharris.org ? Isn't that a joke!

"The Bible is a curious and often evaluated anthology, most notably Exodus has drawn criticism for its lack of historical evidence of having taken place. While I may not outright affirm that the Bible is a fictional piece of literature, Genesis is by far an account of a fantastic creation mythology that seems to be in rivalry with science in general."

Does you in any way provide proof or convincing argumentation based on sound evidence that Genesis/Exodus are unreliable in terms of being historical? Absolutely not! Is it relevant that a particular position has merely "drawn criticism". I suppose if you are a weak minded overly sensitive person it does, but logical thinkers are going to remain unpersuaded.

Weak argumentation, denialism and illegitimate tactics are not going to save atheism from its currently decline in adherents, but merely reinforce and accelerate its decline. Christianity and biblical creation have far too much evidence for this approach to be successful and I would encourage non-Christians to examine the 7,000 plus pages of the Creation Ministries International website which offers a wealth of evidence supporting biblical creation and Christianity.

It shows no evidence, because the definition of evidence is redefined by christianity as coming from a 1500 year old book translated through many different languages and finally being translated into english.... what... 300 years ago?

Your faith is exactly that, your faith that what is in the book is inerrant truth. That is fine. Whatever floats your boat.

But the redefinition of evidence is just moving the goalposts repeatedly to suit your own needs. EVIDENCE does not prove or disprove the existance of god. EVIDENCE does not in any way actually prove anything to do with christianity. It does not need to, as it is a different beast entirely. Religion is not science is not religion.

Do you have convincing evidence for evolution which this blog is supposedly withholding? If so, why didn't you offer it?

Second, do you truly believe in the point counter point methodology of ascertaining truth? If so, debate us and the debate will be recorded and distributed to 20,000 subscribers. You can reach us via our free chat room located here: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 Are you going to do this? If not, why not? Frankly, I am very skeptical of your protestations.

Third, if you very strongly believe in the point and counterpoint methodology of ascertaining truth then by all means arrange a debate with prominent evolutionists and the scientists at Creation Ministries International in a format which allows for extensive point and counterpoint interaction.

As for evidence for evolution, honestly I would not know where to begin. I think we can both agree that this blog does not give evolution a voice.

There are a few questions I would like to ask you:

1: How did dinosaurs come to exist? How did they go extinct?

2: Why do living organisms on planet Earth have vestigial traits?Why do whales have hind legs? How do you explain blind fish? Fish that moved to living in complete darkness and had no use for eyes any longer but instead have better hearing than their cousins that never found themselves so deep in the ocean.

How do you explain human vestigiality?We have parts leftover that are completely useless to us.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

I applogize for a wiki source, you can google for other sources specifically once you find something you want to know more about, for example the vestigial appendix in humans.

Our species moved away from eating plants and so this ex-organ became entirely useless to us. If anything its just another place for something bad to happen.

Why don't more biologists believe in creation?How come the people most well educated in organisms believe in evolution?

Now I would like you to ask me questions that creations answers better than evolution. Thanks again

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

Debate of course, but will this be enforced?

Anything scientific I say will have no basis in or be supported by scripture.

You can reach the owner of the chat room Shockofgod and make the necessary arrangements for a debate http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 or email him via his YouTube channel which is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod Before emailing him, send him a friend request and wait for it to be accepted as he has friends lock on in terms of getting YouTube emails.

As far as reaching Shockofgod via the chat room, when he is there, he usually is there between 10pm and midnight Eastern Standard Time, USA time on weekdays plus he pops in on weekends too but I am not sure when.

"The only concerning part of CMI's mission statement is the following:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

Debate of course, but will this be enforced?

Anything scientific I say will have no basis in or be supported by scripture."

Here is my reply:

As far our Question evolution campaign group, we do not have an acid test as far as team membership when it comes to Christian apologetic approaches (evidentialism, theological critical realism and presuppositionalism for example). We are all Bible believers though.

I am not sure how any other Question evolution! campaign groups work when it comes to Christian apologetic approaches (please see this blog post: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/powerful-tools-to-spread-and-multiply_08.html).

Accordingly, do not be concerned about this matter. Simply present your best evidence and arguments.

One comment was accidentally removed before it was read as the wrong button was pushed.

Second, some evolutionists take the line that nearly all creationist don't really understand the evolutionary hypothesis or they just need one more bit of information and then they will become evolutionists. The participants of this blog understand the evolutionary position, know it is false and lacks sufficient evidence plus it is contra evidence as well.

With the above in mind, while as a general principle the members of our group certainly don't have a problem with people who possess zeal and conviction, but please don't use the blog comment feature as a platform to promote unrelated matters to the post at hand. Please save any supposed evidence for evolution for the upcoming debate. The blog comments unrelated to the blog post at hand will not be approved. While we wish we could spend all day addressing the 150 plus years of speculations that evolutionists have put forth with our evolutionists readers, we think debates are a more efficient method of handling this as it has the added advantage of gaining a much wider audience because we broadcast these debates to a much wider audience.

How can you people be so stupid? there is no god. there's no evidence to support the claims in the the bible. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE! I'm not saying that you cant believe in a god, its you're own choice, but, you shouldn't be shoving your bigoted point of view down peoples throats through lies. you cant just bash other religions and beliefs and say its legitimate points. you have no argument besides the bible, which has been proven to have lies within it. you're religion uses guilt and fear to manipulate innocent people.

1. Where is your evidence that I and others of this blog are stupid? My IQ is very high and I on a state science exam, I scored the highest score in my science class.

2. Are you an atheist or agnostic? If so, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism and agnosticism are valid worldviews?

How confident are you in your atheism/agnosticism? Are you willing to have a debate on the existence of God? The Christians would offer some of this evidence: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html

I very much doubt you can give on iota of evidence for atheism/agnosticism.

If you are confident in your atheism/agnosticism, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate.

3. Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate.